The book is itself limited, or rather it is very much of its time. Lenin acknowledged this because he was writing for the censor. Written in 1916 it needed to bypass Tsarist censorship and thus Lenin's conclusions and language are deliberately mitigated. Michael Kidron, his his own discussion of Lenin's work noted more critically that "have all been lost sight of in an uncritical, almost universal, acceptance of its central themes. This is all the more strange since much of what he analysed has clearly either gone or become much less important than in his day."
Kidron goes on to make some sharp criticisms of Lenin's work. Recognising it as a brilliant piece of revolutionary work at the time, but acknowleding that it has its limits and is very much of its time. Lenin himself acknowledges this in one of the prefaces written after the Revolution when he notes that the book was limited by lack of research material while writing in exile. Kidron's criticisms focus on the changing role of banks and finance capital, which was central to Lenin's analysis and he argues, a over generalisation from the German economic situation. The changing importance of capital export from developed economies to the developing world is also something noted by Kidron.
These criticisms remain important and Marxist theorists such as Alex Callinicos have continued to develop the theory of imperialism for a new years, 60 years after Kidron's critique and over a century since Lenin's. Nonetheless Lenin's book remains crucial to understanding modern imperialism because it offers a Marxist account of the interaction between capitalist development and imperialist structure. Lenin argues that his left critics, such as Kautsky continually misunderstand imperialism prescisely because of their neglect for context.
So what does Lenin argue? Imperialism, says Lenin, arises out of a stage in capitalist development when monopoly capitalism (existence of gigantic firms that have swallowed up most, or all, of their competitors) comes to dominant and can obtain massive profits from exporting capital into delveloping countries. This is faciliated, Lenin argues, when banks have reached such proportions that they control finance capital and can deploy it to further their own interests and those of other capitalists. This then goes further, as Lenin writes, "the 'personal union' between the banks and industry is completed by the 'personal union' between both and the state."
This union between capital and the state means that the state itself can and must intervene in the interest of its own national capital in the world. While this can lead to war, Lenin also highlights that imperialism is more than war. It is the intervention of the state in trade, economic relations and colonial development, in the interests of its capital. Two countries, he writes
England and France are the oldest capitalist countries, and... possess the most colonies; the other two, the United States and Germany, are the front rank as regards rapidty of development the degree of extension of capitalist monopolies in industry. Together these four countries own 479,000,000,00 francs... nearly 80 percent of the world's financial capital. Thus... the whole world is more or less the debtor to and tributary of these four international banker countries, the four 'pillars' of world finance capital.
Such a relationship rests on the ability of the state to deploy military power if required, as Thomas Friedman famously said in 1999:
The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist. McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies to flourish is called the US Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.
It is this analysis that makes Lenin's work such a crucial starting point for anyone trying to analyse the modern world. Think of US intervention in the Middle East, or Russia and Ukraine's war. We cannot understand these without understanding the "economic essence of imperialism", to use Lenin's words. Take Ukrain and Russia. Russian aggression began the conflict, but it was Nato and Western interests attempt to hold back Russia's economic interests that identify the conflict as a proxy imperialist one.
But there are aspects to contemporary imperialism that remain absent from Lenin's book. One of these is the question of "sub imperialism", those nations who have broken from colonial domination and now exert their own economic and political interests, sometimes militarily. Israel in the wider Middle East, or Iran and UAE in Syria and Sudan. Lenin's work is dominated by an attempt to explain World War One and link this understanding to a fight against "opportunists" whose siding with their nation state had so badly damaged the socialist movement. Nonetheless, understanding how the development of capital in post-colonial countries and regions has led to sub-imperialist clashes, hinges on the same recognition as Lenin developed in understanding the rise of the Great Powers in the colonial era. If Lenin's work doesn't anticipate these developments, it does, at every stage recognise that colonialism needed to be resisted by those workers and peasants in colonial states. Had he lived to see this era, he would no doubt have analysed it as succinctly and clearly as he does in this work.
Related Reviews
Lenin - The Development of Capitalism in Russia
Lenin - The Agrarian Programme of Social-Democracy in the First Russian Revolution 1905-1907
Lenin - Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky
Lenin - Will the Bolsheviks Maintain Power?
Callinicos - Imperialism and Global Political Economy
No comments:
Post a Comment